Yes, I agree that the two situations aren't the same. I was not attempting to equate them.

They are clearly different because in one instance the team member participated, while in the other he did not.

I posted this Case Book ruling solely to refute what you wrote in your prior post, which I quoted.

The point is that the submission of an incorrect roster does not always warrant a technical foul. The specific situation of the team member with the incorrect listing never participating is one example.

Perhaps we are advocating the same position without communicating clearly. :)

*3.2.2 situation c
 

*3.2.2 SITUATION C: Team A substitute No. 25 reports to the table for the first
time with approximately one minute remaining in the second quarter and is beckoned
onto the court. In (a), the ball is put in play by a throw-in from A1 to A2.
The horn sounds and the scorer informs the officials that No. 25 is not listed in
the scorebook. In (b), No. 25 plays the remainder of the second quarter. During
halftime intermission, the official scorer realizes No. 25 is not listed in the scorebook
and informs the officials when they return to the court before the start of
the third quarter. RULING: In (a), No. 25 is currently in the game and became a
player when he/she legally entered the court. Since his or her name and number
must now be entered into the scorebook, a technical foul is charged to Team A.
In (b), no penalty is assessed since No. 25 is not currently in the game. If No. 25
attempts to enter the game in the second half, his or her name and number will
be added to the scorebook and a technical foul charged to Team A. (3-2-2b; 10-
1-2b)

Slightly incorrect. It's not a violation to have a teammember listed incorrectly. It's a violation to change the number after the 10 minute mark. The question at hand seems to be what exactly necessitates making the change. If he never plays, obviously you don't have to make the change.

Beyond that, I agree with Nevada.

To get into semantics even more, I believe that it actually is a violation of the rules to have a team member listed incorrectly on the roster which is submitted to the scorer before the game. However, this infraction is only penalized under certain circumstances. Requiring to scorer to make a change after the ten-minute mark prior to the game would be circumstances that warrant the infraction being penalized with a team technical foul.
The crux of this debate comes down to exactly what circumstances necessitate a change and thus trigger a penalty being imposed. The NFHS has written some conflicting guidelines on that.

Beyond that, I agree with Snaqwells. ;)

But, 3.2.2C (b) clearly states that someone who has already played, but not in the game at the time of discovery, is not penalized. And, it is consistent with 3.2.2B (a) in that those team members are not penalized if they never enter the game. So it appears the NFHS is consistent with saying the penalty is enforced on players, not team members, while you are advocating inconsistency by penalizing a team member in one instance, while not penalizing them in another, where the only difference is participation before discovery. Isn't there already precedence in the rules for allowing an illegal sub to become a legal player, and not penalized, if we don't discover it in time? Does it matter if they've already been in the game before or not?

There is no mention anywhere about a book having to be changed because stats aren't accurate. As far as the issue of keeping accurate stats for records or eligibility purposes, don't all those stats go towards a player's name, not number? What if that player wears 53 at the beginning of the season, loses weight, and wears 25 for the second half? Do they have different stats for each number they wear? What if the player rips their jersey and has to wear a different number in the 2nd quarter? I think you get my point - stats have no bearing on the number in the book because the stats go with the player's name.

Whether or not I agree with how the rule's written is not important. For the record, I would agree it makes sense to penalize a rules infraction when we discover it. There is a little bit of feeling that someone has "gotten away with something" if we don't get to penalize them on the "technicality" of us not catching it at the moment they're in the game. But we don't get that choice, we only get to follow the rules. And, for someone who is a stickler on enforcing the rules as written, it seems a little inconsistent that you would advocate a penalty solely on your disagreement with the rule.

The key word there is "never." In the OP, while that team member was not a player at the time of discovery, he indeed entered the game.

You're right, it is a key word...in your mind. ;)

How about 3.2.2 C (b)? They were in the game, with the same result. A player's number should be changed, but a team member's number does not have to be changed until they enter the game, and it specifically doesn't matter if they've already been in the game or not.

Someone will have to provide the exact passage. I only have an older book handy (2008), and there's no 3.2.2C (b) in it.

BillyMac already did in post #17 above.

And look at the words used in both 3.2.2B in '08, and 3.2.2C in '09 - they specifically mention the terms "players" and "team members". That may be why the committee added 3.2.2C, to address how they wanted the rule to differentiate between the two.

Indeed so. Hmmmm.

Okay, so if the case book says this rule only applies to "players," why would you have the phrase "team members" in the rule? Also, the fact that 3.2.2C was different in 2007-08 (there was no (b)) tells me this is a recent change or clarification.

There is a difference between the two. 4-34-1 tells us a "player" is one of the 5 team members who are legally on the court at any given time, except intermission. 4-34-4 tells us a "team member" is a member of bench personnel who is in uniform and is eligible to become a player.

I know the difference between the two, sir. Again, my question is, why would the rule even bother to use the phrase "team members," when the case book says it's only enforcable on players?

A situation that may help to answer your question: B34 reports to the table to enter the game at the next opportunity. You call a TC foul on White12. As you finish reporting and are about to beckon the substitute onto the floor, the official scorer waves you over to the table and informs you that B34 is not in the book. At this point, B'c Coach can call B34 back to the bench and choose to not play him/her that night, thus evading the T. Or, B's Coach can ask the scorer to change B34 to the correct number - B35. At which point the book is changed and the T is administered.

When did B34/35 become a player? And yet the T was still administered because the book was changed after the 10 minute limit.

Don't know sir, I wasn't in the room when they wrote it. ;)

Maybe the committee felt it was more important, in this case, to penalize bookkeeping items involving players, rather than penalizing the team for a sub that may never get in the game. This may also be the reason they've gone from penalizing each infraction within a category to simply one penalty within that category.

Rocky also gives a good example of why it's good to know the definitions, the difference between the two, and when one status ends and the other begins.

Where does the case book say "only players?"

The case book is used to give examples of a rule or a portion thereof. Even if all the cases deal with "only players," the fact that the term team members is a part of the rule tells us that this is also a possibility.